mirror of
https://github.com/elastic/elasticsearch.git
synced 2025-06-29 09:54:06 -04:00
We encountered a case where a substantial fraction of the heap usage was due to per-segment-per-field `FieldInfo` objects, particularly `FieldInfo#name`. This commit adds a note to the sizing docs about this overhead.
435 lines
17 KiB
Text
435 lines
17 KiB
Text
[[size-your-shards]]
|
||
== Size your shards
|
||
|
||
Each index in {es} is divided into one or more shards, each of which may be
|
||
replicated across multiple nodes to protect against hardware failures. If you
|
||
are using <<data-streams>> then each data stream is backed by a sequence of
|
||
indices. There is a limit to the amount of data you can store on a single node
|
||
so you can increase the capacity of your cluster by adding nodes and increasing
|
||
the number of indices and shards to match. However, each index and shard has
|
||
some overhead and if you divide your data across too many shards then the
|
||
overhead can become overwhelming. A cluster with too many indices or shards is
|
||
said to suffer from _oversharding_. An oversharded cluster will be less
|
||
efficient at responding to searches and in extreme cases it may even become
|
||
unstable.
|
||
|
||
[discrete]
|
||
[[create-a-sharding-strategy]]
|
||
=== Create a sharding strategy
|
||
|
||
The best way to prevent oversharding and other shard-related issues is to
|
||
create a sharding strategy. A sharding strategy helps you determine and
|
||
maintain the optimal number of shards for your cluster while limiting the size
|
||
of those shards.
|
||
|
||
Unfortunately, there is no one-size-fits-all sharding strategy. A strategy that
|
||
works in one environment may not scale in another. A good sharding strategy
|
||
must account for your infrastructure, use case, and performance expectations.
|
||
|
||
The best way to create a sharding strategy is to benchmark your production data
|
||
on production hardware using the same queries and indexing loads you'd see in
|
||
production. For our recommended methodology, watch the
|
||
https://www.elastic.co/elasticon/conf/2016/sf/quantitative-cluster-sizing[quantitative
|
||
cluster sizing video]. As you test different shard configurations, use {kib}'s
|
||
{kibana-ref}/elasticsearch-metrics.html[{es} monitoring tools] to track your
|
||
cluster's stability and performance.
|
||
|
||
The following sections provide some reminders and guidelines you should
|
||
consider when designing your sharding strategy. If your cluster is already
|
||
oversharded, see <<reduce-cluster-shard-count>>.
|
||
|
||
[discrete]
|
||
[[shard-sizing-considerations]]
|
||
=== Sizing considerations
|
||
|
||
Keep the following things in mind when building your sharding strategy.
|
||
|
||
[discrete]
|
||
[[single-thread-per-shard]]
|
||
==== Searches run on a single thread per shard
|
||
|
||
Most searches hit multiple shards. Each shard runs the search on a single
|
||
CPU thread. While a shard can run multiple concurrent searches, searches across a
|
||
large number of shards can deplete a node's <<modules-threadpool,search
|
||
thread pool>>. This can result in low throughput and slow search speeds.
|
||
|
||
[discrete]
|
||
[[each-shard-has-overhead]]
|
||
==== Each index, shard, segment and field has overhead
|
||
|
||
Every index and every shard requires some memory and CPU resources. In most
|
||
cases, a small set of large shards uses fewer resources than many small shards.
|
||
|
||
Segments play a big role in a shard's resource usage. Most shards contain
|
||
several segments, which store its index data. {es} keeps some segment metadata
|
||
in heap memory so it can be quickly retrieved for searches. As a shard grows,
|
||
its segments are <<index-modules-merge,merged>> into fewer, larger segments.
|
||
This decreases the number of segments, which means less metadata is kept in
|
||
heap memory.
|
||
|
||
Every mapped field also carries some overhead in terms of memory usage and disk
|
||
space. By default {es} will automatically create a mapping for every field in
|
||
every document it indexes, but you can switch off this behaviour to
|
||
<<explicit-mapping,take control of your mappings>>.
|
||
|
||
Moreover every segment requires a small amount of heap memory for each mapped
|
||
field. This per-segment-per-field heap overhead includes a copy of the field
|
||
name, encoded using ISO-8859-1 if applicable or UTF-16 otherwise. Usually this
|
||
is not noticeable, but you may need to account for this overhead if your shards
|
||
have high segment counts and the corresponding mappings contain high field
|
||
counts and/or very long field names.
|
||
|
||
[discrete]
|
||
[[shard-auto-balance]]
|
||
==== {es} automatically balances shards within a data tier
|
||
|
||
A cluster's nodes are grouped into <<data-tiers,data tiers>>. Within each tier,
|
||
{es} attempts to spread an index's shards across as many nodes as possible. When
|
||
you add a new node or a node fails, {es} automatically rebalances the index's
|
||
shards across the tier's remaining nodes.
|
||
|
||
[discrete]
|
||
[[shard-size-best-practices]]
|
||
=== Best practices
|
||
|
||
Where applicable, use the following best practices as starting points for your
|
||
sharding strategy.
|
||
|
||
[discrete]
|
||
[[delete-indices-not-documents]]
|
||
==== Delete indices, not documents
|
||
|
||
Deleted documents aren't immediately removed from {es}'s file system.
|
||
Instead, {es} marks the document as deleted on each related shard. The marked
|
||
document will continue to use resources until it's removed during a periodic
|
||
<<index-modules-merge,segment merge>>.
|
||
|
||
When possible, delete entire indices instead. {es} can immediately remove
|
||
deleted indices directly from the file system and free up resources.
|
||
|
||
[discrete]
|
||
[[use-ds-ilm-for-time-series]]
|
||
==== Use data streams and {ilm-init} for time series data
|
||
|
||
<<data-streams,Data streams>> let you store time series data across multiple,
|
||
time-based backing indices. You can use <<index-lifecycle-management,{ilm}
|
||
({ilm-init})>> to automatically manage these backing indices.
|
||
|
||
One advantage of this setup is
|
||
<<getting-started-index-lifecycle-management,automatic rollover>>, which creates
|
||
a new write index when the current one meets a defined `max_primary_shard_size`,
|
||
`max_age`, `max_docs`, or `max_size` threshold. When an index is no longer
|
||
needed, you can use {ilm-init} to automatically delete it and free up resources.
|
||
|
||
{ilm-init} also makes it easy to change your sharding strategy over time:
|
||
|
||
* *Want to decrease the shard count for new indices?* +
|
||
Change the <<index-number-of-shards,`index.number_of_shards`>> setting in the
|
||
data stream's <<data-streams-change-mappings-and-settings,matching index
|
||
template>>.
|
||
|
||
* *Want larger shards or fewer backing indices?* +
|
||
Increase your {ilm-init} policy's <<ilm-rollover,rollover threshold>>.
|
||
|
||
* *Need indices that span shorter intervals?* +
|
||
Offset the increased shard count by deleting older indices sooner. You can do
|
||
this by lowering the `min_age` threshold for your policy's
|
||
<<ilm-index-lifecycle,delete phase>>.
|
||
|
||
Every new backing index is an opportunity to further tune your strategy.
|
||
|
||
[discrete]
|
||
[[shard-size-recommendation]]
|
||
==== Aim for shard sizes between 10GB and 50GB
|
||
|
||
Larger shards take longer to recover after a failure. When a node fails, {es}
|
||
rebalances the node's shards across the data tier's remaining nodes. This
|
||
recovery process typically involves copying the shard contents across the
|
||
network, so a 100GB shard will take twice as long to recover than a 50GB shard.
|
||
In contrast, small shards carry proportionally more overhead and are less
|
||
efficient to search. Searching fifty 1GB shards will take substantially more
|
||
resources than searching a single 50GB shard containing the same data.
|
||
|
||
There are no hard limits on shard size, but experience shows that shards
|
||
between 10GB and 50GB typically work well for logs and time series data. You
|
||
may be able to use larger shards depending on your network and use case.
|
||
Smaller shards may be appropriate for
|
||
{enterprise-search-ref}/index.html[Enterprise Search] and similar use cases.
|
||
|
||
If you use {ilm-init}, set the <<ilm-rollover,rollover action>>'s
|
||
`max_primary_shard_size` threshold to `50gb` to avoid shards larger than 50GB.
|
||
|
||
To see the current size of your shards, use the <<cat-shards,cat shards API>>.
|
||
|
||
[source,console]
|
||
----
|
||
GET _cat/shards?v=true&h=index,prirep,shard,store&s=prirep,store&bytes=gb
|
||
----
|
||
// TEST[setup:my_index]
|
||
|
||
The `pri.store.size` value shows the combined size of all primary shards for
|
||
the index.
|
||
|
||
[source,txt]
|
||
----
|
||
index prirep shard store
|
||
.ds-my-data-stream-2099.05.06-000001 p 0 50gb
|
||
...
|
||
----
|
||
// TESTRESPONSE[non_json]
|
||
// TESTRESPONSE[s/\.ds-my-data-stream-2099\.05\.06-000001/my-index-000001/]
|
||
// TESTRESPONSE[s/50gb/.*/]
|
||
|
||
[discrete]
|
||
[[shard-count-recommendation]]
|
||
==== Master-eligible nodes should have at least 1GB of heap per 3000 indices
|
||
|
||
The number of indices a master node can manage is proportional to its heap
|
||
size. The exact amount of heap memory needed for each index depends on various
|
||
factors such as the size of the mapping and the number of shards per index.
|
||
|
||
As a general rule of thumb, you should have fewer than 3000 indices per GB of
|
||
heap on master nodes. For example, if your cluster has dedicated master nodes
|
||
with 4GB of heap each then you should have fewer than 12000 indices. If your
|
||
master nodes are not dedicated master nodes then the same sizing guidance
|
||
applies: you should reserve at least 1GB of heap on each master-eligible node
|
||
for every 3000 indices in your cluster.
|
||
|
||
Note that this rule defines the absolute maximum number of indices that a
|
||
master node can manage, but does not guarantee the performance of searches or
|
||
indexing involving this many indices. You must also ensure that your data nodes
|
||
have adequate resources for your workload and that your overall sharding
|
||
strategy meets all your performance requirements. See also
|
||
<<single-thread-per-shard>> and <<each-shard-has-overhead>>.
|
||
|
||
To check the configured size of each node's heap, use the <<cat-nodes,cat nodes
|
||
API>>.
|
||
|
||
[source,console]
|
||
----
|
||
GET _cat/nodes?v=true&h=heap.max
|
||
----
|
||
// TEST[setup:my_index]
|
||
|
||
You can use the <<cat-shards,cat shards API>> to check the number of shards per
|
||
node.
|
||
|
||
[source,console]
|
||
----
|
||
GET _cat/shards?v=true
|
||
----
|
||
// TEST[setup:my_index]
|
||
|
||
[discrete]
|
||
[[field-count-recommendation]]
|
||
==== Data nodes should have at least 1kB of heap per field per index, plus overheads
|
||
|
||
The exact resource usage of each mapped field depends on its type, but a rule
|
||
of thumb is to allow for approximately 1kB of heap overhead per mapped field
|
||
per index held by each data node. You must also allow enough heap for {es}'s
|
||
baseline usage as well as your workload such as indexing, searches and
|
||
aggregations. 0.5GB of extra heap will suffice for many reasonable workloads,
|
||
and you may need even less if your workload is very light while heavy workloads
|
||
may require more.
|
||
|
||
For example, if a data node holds shards from 1000 indices, each containing
|
||
4000 mapped fields, then you should allow approximately 1000 × 4000 × 1kB = 4GB
|
||
of heap for the fields and another 0.5GB of heap for its workload and other
|
||
overheads, and therefore this node will need a heap size of at least 4.5GB.
|
||
|
||
Note that this rule defines the absolute maximum number of indices that a data
|
||
node can manage, but does not guarantee the performance of searches or indexing
|
||
involving this many indices. You must also ensure that your data nodes have
|
||
adequate resources for your workload and that your overall sharding strategy
|
||
meets all your performance requirements. See also <<single-thread-per-shard>>
|
||
and <<each-shard-has-overhead>>.
|
||
|
||
[discrete]
|
||
[[avoid-node-hotspots]]
|
||
==== Avoid node hotspots
|
||
|
||
If too many shards are allocated to a specific node, the node can become a
|
||
hotspot. For example, if a single node contains too many shards for an index
|
||
with a high indexing volume, the node is likely to have issues.
|
||
|
||
To prevent hotspots, use the
|
||
<<total-shards-per-node,`index.routing.allocation.total_shards_per_node`>> index
|
||
setting to explicitly limit the number of shards on a single node. You can
|
||
configure `index.routing.allocation.total_shards_per_node` using the
|
||
<<indices-update-settings,update index settings API>>.
|
||
|
||
[source,console]
|
||
--------------------------------------------------
|
||
PUT my-index-000001/_settings
|
||
{
|
||
"index" : {
|
||
"routing.allocation.total_shards_per_node" : 5
|
||
}
|
||
}
|
||
--------------------------------------------------
|
||
// TEST[setup:my_index]
|
||
|
||
[discrete]
|
||
[[avoid-unnecessary-fields]]
|
||
==== Avoid unnecessary mapped fields
|
||
|
||
By default {es} <<dynamic-mapping,automatically creates a mapping>> for every
|
||
field in every document it indexes. Every mapped field corresponds to some data
|
||
structures on disk which are needed for efficient search, retrieval, and
|
||
aggregations on this field. Details about each mapped field are also held in
|
||
memory. In many cases this overhead is unnecessary because a field is not used
|
||
in any searches or aggregations. Use <<explicit-mapping>> instead of dynamic
|
||
mapping to avoid creating fields that are never used. If a collection of fields
|
||
are typically used together, consider using <<copy-to>> to consolidate them at
|
||
index time. If a field is only rarely used, it may be better to make it a
|
||
<<runtime,Runtime field>> instead.
|
||
|
||
You can get information about which fields are being used with the
|
||
<<field-usage-stats>> API, and you can analyze the disk usage of mapped fields
|
||
using the <<indices-disk-usage>> API. Note however that unnecessary mapped
|
||
fields also carry some memory overhead as well as their disk usage.
|
||
|
||
[discrete]
|
||
[[reduce-cluster-shard-count]]
|
||
=== Reduce a cluster's shard count
|
||
|
||
If your cluster is already oversharded, you can use one or more of the following
|
||
methods to reduce its shard count.
|
||
|
||
[discrete]
|
||
[[create-indices-that-cover-longer-time-periods]]
|
||
==== Create indices that cover longer time periods
|
||
|
||
If you use {ilm-init} and your retention policy allows it, avoid using a
|
||
`max_age` threshold for the rollover action. Instead, use
|
||
`max_primary_shard_size` to avoid creating empty indices or many small shards.
|
||
|
||
If your retention policy requires a `max_age` threshold, increase it to create
|
||
indices that cover longer time intervals. For example, instead of creating daily
|
||
indices, you can create indices on a weekly or monthly basis.
|
||
|
||
[discrete]
|
||
[[delete-empty-indices]]
|
||
==== Delete empty or unneeded indices
|
||
|
||
If you're using {ilm-init} and roll over indices based on a `max_age` threshold,
|
||
you can inadvertently create indices with no documents. These empty indices
|
||
provide no benefit but still consume resources.
|
||
|
||
You can find these empty indices using the <<cat-count,cat count API>>.
|
||
|
||
[source,console]
|
||
----
|
||
GET _cat/count/my-index-000001?v=true
|
||
----
|
||
// TEST[setup:my_index]
|
||
|
||
Once you have a list of empty indices, you can delete them using the
|
||
<<indices-delete-index,delete index API>>. You can also delete any other
|
||
unneeded indices.
|
||
|
||
[source,console]
|
||
----
|
||
DELETE my-index-000001
|
||
----
|
||
// TEST[setup:my_index]
|
||
|
||
[discrete]
|
||
[[force-merge-during-off-peak-hours]]
|
||
==== Force merge during off-peak hours
|
||
|
||
If you no longer write to an index, you can use the <<indices-forcemerge,force
|
||
merge API>> to <<index-modules-merge,merge>> smaller segments into larger ones.
|
||
This can reduce shard overhead and improve search speeds. However, force merges
|
||
are resource-intensive. If possible, run the force merge during off-peak hours.
|
||
|
||
[source,console]
|
||
----
|
||
POST my-index-000001/_forcemerge
|
||
----
|
||
// TEST[setup:my_index]
|
||
|
||
[discrete]
|
||
[[shrink-existing-index-to-fewer-shards]]
|
||
==== Shrink an existing index to fewer shards
|
||
|
||
If you no longer write to an index, you can use the
|
||
<<indices-shrink-index,shrink index API>> to reduce its shard count.
|
||
|
||
{ilm-init} also has a <<ilm-shrink,shrink action>> for indices in the
|
||
warm phase.
|
||
|
||
[discrete]
|
||
[[combine-smaller-indices]]
|
||
==== Combine smaller indices
|
||
|
||
You can also use the <<docs-reindex,reindex API>> to combine indices
|
||
with similar mappings into a single large index. For time series data, you could
|
||
reindex indices for short time periods into a new index covering a
|
||
longer period. For example, you could reindex daily indices from October with a
|
||
shared index pattern, such as `my-index-2099.10.11`, into a monthly
|
||
`my-index-2099.10` index. After the reindex, delete the smaller indices.
|
||
|
||
[source,console]
|
||
----
|
||
POST _reindex
|
||
{
|
||
"source": {
|
||
"index": "my-index-2099.10.*"
|
||
},
|
||
"dest": {
|
||
"index": "my-index-2099.10"
|
||
}
|
||
}
|
||
----
|
||
|
||
[discrete]
|
||
[[troubleshoot-shard-related-errors]]
|
||
=== Troubleshoot shard-related errors
|
||
|
||
Here’s how to resolve common shard-related errors.
|
||
|
||
[discrete]
|
||
==== this action would add [x] total shards, but this cluster currently has [y]/[z] maximum shards open;
|
||
|
||
The <<cluster-max-shards-per-node,`cluster.max_shards_per_node`>> cluster
|
||
setting limits the maximum number of open shards for a cluster. This error
|
||
indicates an action would exceed this limit.
|
||
|
||
If you're confident your changes won't destabilize the cluster, you can
|
||
temporarily increase the limit using the <<cluster-update-settings,cluster
|
||
update settings API>> and retry the action.
|
||
|
||
[source,console]
|
||
----
|
||
PUT _cluster/settings
|
||
{
|
||
"persistent" : {
|
||
"cluster.max_shards_per_node": 1200
|
||
}
|
||
}
|
||
----
|
||
|
||
This increase should only be temporary. As a long-term solution, we recommend
|
||
you add nodes to the oversharded data tier or
|
||
<<reduce-cluster-shard-count,reduce your cluster's shard count>>. To get a
|
||
cluster's current shard count after making changes, use the
|
||
<<cluster-stats,cluster stats API>>.
|
||
|
||
[source,console]
|
||
----
|
||
GET _cluster/stats?filter_path=indices.shards.total
|
||
----
|
||
|
||
When a long-term solution is in place, we recommend you reset the
|
||
`cluster.max_shards_per_node` limit.
|
||
|
||
[source,console]
|
||
----
|
||
PUT _cluster/settings
|
||
{
|
||
"persistent" : {
|
||
"cluster.max_shards_per_node": null
|
||
}
|
||
}
|
||
----
|